摘要
应当以保护法益为指导解释刑法第338条规定的污染环境罪;对于经《刑法修正案(八)》修改后的污染环境罪,既不能仅采取纯粹生态学的法益论,也不能仅采取纯粹人类中心的法益论,而应采取生态学的人类中心的法益论(折衷说);只要生态学的法益与人类中心的法益不相抵触,就需要保护生态学的法益。相对于人类中心的法益而言,污染环境罪是结果犯;但相对于生态学的法益而言,污染环境罪既可能是行为犯,也可能是结果犯,这是环境法益的复杂性决定的;相对于人类中心的法益而言,污染环境罪的基本犯大体上是抽象危险犯,但相对于生态学的法益而言,污染环境罪的基本犯则是侵害犯。污染环境罪的基本犯的责任形式只能是故意,不可能是过失,因而也不能采取混合说或者模糊罪过说。
The crime of environmental pollution which is prescribed under Article 338 should be interpreted in accord- ance with the principle of legally protected interests. After the Amendments VIII, the legally protected interests of crime of en- vironmental pollution should not be taken as pure ecology, nor should it be taken as pure human centred interests, it should be compromised with both ecology and human centred interests. As long as the ecology interests are not in conflict with human centred interests, such ecology interests should be protected as legal interests. In terms of human centred interests, the crime of environmental pollution is consequential offence; however, in terms of ecology interests, the crime of environmental pollu- tion can be either behavioural offence or consequential offence. This is determined by the complexity of the legally protected in- terests of environment. In terms of human centred interests, the basic offence of the crime of environmental pollution is ab- stract endangerment offence in general; however, in terms of ecology interests, the basic offence of the crime of environmental pollution is harmed offence. As to the liability form of the crime of environmental pollution, the basic offence of this crime can only be committed with intention; negligence cannot be one of the liability forms of this crime. Therefore, we cannot adopt the mixed theory or the blurred theory of the liability in this crime.
出处
《法学评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2018年第2期1-19,共19页
Law Review
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目<我国刑法修正的理论模型与制度实践研究>(16ZDA060)的阶段性成果
关键词
污染环境罪
保护法益
行为构造
责任形式
the Crime of Environmental Pollution
the Legally Protected Interests
the Behaviour Structure
the Lia- bility Form
